Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Mad Scientist
21246 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 683243 8-Sep-2012 21:50
Send private message

well don't mention that you came from the green sign road .. because after the green sign road the actual road had no markings ... but your chances of coming out of this in the correct is slim ... coz no insurance to fight on your behalf :(




Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


Mad Scientist
21246 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 683244 8-Sep-2012 21:50
Send private message

but yeah what a dumb intersection!




Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


 
 
 
 


15283 posts

Uber Geek


  # 683246 8-Sep-2012 22:01
Send private message

That is one shocking road, and poor road markings. And I though Wellingtons roads were bad.

I am not sure if the Op was in the wrong, as I personally would have interprated that I could go straight on or right due to there being no extra markings on the next intersection where they said the accident occurred. It is essentially two interestions, but he markings only refer to the first one. Why they haven't got extra raod markings is beyond me. Perhaps this raod was repaired after the EQ's and they forgot to remark them?
Also the markings on the road to the right seem to differ and contradict the other ones. They say that if you are in the right lane, you can either go straight one or go right. Thus if the bus was in the left lane, they shouldn't have turned right at all http://goo.gl/maps/p8TDk

Edit: Some of the streetview photos and the aerial photo appear to be from a different date from others. eg some of the photos and aerial photo show the OP twas trying to drive into as 2 laned, while the closest streetview photo to the intersection appear to show it as a single lane.



77 posts

Master Geek


  # 683247 8-Sep-2012 22:08
Send private message

thanks for your input guys..

i hope the bus' insurance company understands how confusing it could be for a new guy in town :(

1297 posts

Uber Geek


  # 683249 8-Sep-2012 22:13
Send private message

This intersection has been like this for years (I forget how long since it was remodelled, probably 10 years, more, I don't recall exactly what it was originally, I think a straight T intersection on cranmer-kilmore and then another kilmore-montreal). 

It is a bit of a strange intersection admittedly, but then the one-way system in Chch is a bit unusual itself :)

Unfortunately, I'd have to say that the OP is liable for the accident as they left their lane and crossed into the bus' lane causing the accident, the bus did not have an opportunity to avoid the accident.

Hopefully the bus wasn't badly damaged.  As for your own car, you better break out the socket set!




---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...


656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  # 683261 8-Sep-2012 22:39
Send private message

mattwnz: That is one shocking road, and poor road markings. And I though Wellingtons roads were bad.

I am not sure if the Op was in the wrong, as I personally would have interprated that I could go straight on or right due to there being no extra markings on the next intersection where they said the accident occurred. It is essentially two interestions, but he markings only refer to the first one. Why they haven't got extra raod markings is beyond me. Perhaps this raod was repaired after the EQ's and they forgot to remark them?
Also the markings on the road to the right seem to differ and contradict the other ones. They say that if you are in the right lane, you can either go straight one or go right. Thus if the bus was in the left lane, they shouldn't have turned right at all http://goo.gl/maps/p8TDk

Edit: Some of the streetview photos and the aerial photo appear to be from a different date from others. eg some of the photos and aerial photo show the OP twas trying to drive into as 2 laned, while the closest streetview photo to the intersection appear to show it as a single lane.


The actual intersection is unmarked because the "rules" depend on whether you are approaching it from the east or the south.

gzt

10983 posts

Uber Geek


  # 683267 8-Sep-2012 23:02
Send private message

Here's the facts as I see them. At the intersection itself there is no road marking for direction, and there is no road marking for side turning lanes. Therefore you were not in the bus's lane. The outcome here is just one of those many accident cases where there is no liability on either side.

I doubt the bus company's insurance company will pursue you for the accident. I'm sure they will be familiar with this intersection from other clients. Stupid intersection which needs another set of control lights. Lights are not new technology.

The way the intersection is laid out and marked you can even say the bus is at fault for not giving way to the intentions of the vehicle on the right. That is the logical outcome of the facts.

I realise the design attempts to show the desired path at the previous intersection - but that is not the intersection where the accident occurred.

 
 
 
 


15283 posts

Uber Geek


  # 683268 8-Sep-2012 23:04
Send private message

sleemanj: This intersection has been like this for years (I forget how long since it was remodelled, probably 10 years, more, I don't recall exactly what it was originally, I think a straight T intersection on cranmer-kilmore and then another kilmore-montreal).?

It is a bit of a strange intersection admittedly, but then the one-way system in Chch is a bit unusual itself :)

Unfortunately, I'd have to say that the OP is liable for the accident as they left their lane and crossed into the bus' lane causing the accident, the bus did not have an opportunity to avoid the accident.

Hopefully the bus wasn't badly damaged. ?As for your own car, you better break out the socket set!


I guess you don't really know until you see the physical road. 'Unusual' roading system is a nice way to put it.

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  # 683271 8-Sep-2012 23:10
Send private message

gzt: Here's the facts as I see them. At the intersection itself there is no road marking for direction, and there is no road marking for side turning lanes. Therefore you were not in the bus's lane. The outcome here is just one of those many accident cases where there is no liability on either side.

I doubt the bus company's insurance company will pursue you for the accident. I'm sure they will be familiar with this intersection from other clients. Stupid intersection which needs another set of control lights. Lights are not new technology.

The way the intersection is laid out and marked you can even say the bus is at fault for not giving way to the intentions of the vehicle on the right. That is the logical outcome of the facts.

I realise the design attempts to show the desired path at the previous intersection - but that is not the intersection where the accident occurred.


I disagree, I don't believe that lights will fix the issue - the fundamental problem is that the rules are different depending on whether you are approaching from the east or the south.  It's a little easier to consider the two intersections as a whole (and presumably the traffic light phasing will reflect that so nobody will get 'stuck' in between the two intersections.

I suppose you could make it clear by having the right lane from both approaches right turn only, and the left lane from both approaches straight only; however that would effectively introduce a bottleneck into both north/south and east/west traffic restricting both to a single lane at that intersection.

It is fairly clear on approach to the intersection what the rules are, and in this case he has tried to continue straight in a right-turn only lane.  I don't see how the bus company can be held liable (even partially).

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  # 683272 8-Sep-2012 23:12
Send private message

A reasonable analogy is a two-laned roundabout - the roundabout lanes aren't marked, as the rules depend on where you enter the roundabout.

I agree it's poorly designed, but I really don't see how he can escape liability.

gzt

10983 posts

Uber Geek


  # 683275 8-Sep-2012 23:27
Send private message

KevinL: I disagree, I don't believe that lights will fix the issue - the fundamental problem is that the rules are different depending on whether you are approaching from the east or the south.  It's a little easier to consider the two intersections as a whole (and presumably the traffic light phasing will reflect that so nobody will get 'stuck' in between the two intersections.

I agree. That is the problem that needs a solution. Lights are capable of changing the rules dynamically. You would be right to point out that creates it's own problems but it would still give clearer and unambiguous rules at the intersection itself.

I suppose you could make it clear by having the right lane from both approaches right turn only, and the left lane from both approaches straight only; however that would effectively introduce a bottleneck into both north/south and east/west traffic restricting both to a single lane at that intersection.

There are many complementary solutions. Making a rush hours clearway (where you can see the cars are parked at present) and allocating that lane for a free left turn would help with flow. This would involve cutting a bit of the park - perhaps this is a political problem. My guess is the intersection has been left this way because potential solutions create political problems of one kind or another.

It is fairly clear on approach to the intersection what the rules are, and in this case he has tried to continue straight in a right-turn only lane.  I don't see how the bus company can be held liable (even partially).

Because at the intersection itself the only lane marking is straight ahead if anything. I'm not suggesting the bus company is 100% liable here. But it is a possibility to argue this because the bus did not give way to the right at the intersection. As stated before, IMHO it will fall into the 'oh well it's an accident' category where nobody is liable because of the lack of clarity at the intersection itself.

15283 posts

Uber Geek


  # 683276 8-Sep-2012 23:34
Send private message

gzt: The way the intersection is laid out and marked you can even say the bus is at fault for not giving way to the intentions of the vehicle on the right. That is the logical outcome of the facts.


Thats a good point, and by the bus turning right across the OP who said they were on their right and going straight on(as well as being ahead of the bus), I believe the OP would have the right of way on an unmarked road. This is because the bus went into their lane and hit them,they didn't hit the bus. It does appear from the aerial photo that the two separate roads that feed that intersection have two different rules, which makes no sense at all.

Wonder how many other accidents have occurred on this road, and I wonder who responsibility this road is. I presume it is local council road.

gzt

10983 posts

Uber Geek


  # 683277 8-Sep-2012 23:38
Send private message

KevinL: A reasonable analogy is a two-laned roundabout - the roundabout lanes aren't marked, as the rules depend on where you enter the roundabout.

This is not a reasonable analogy. Correct roundabout behavior is clearly defined and tested as part of the Roadcode and drivers license requirements. This intersection? Not at all. ;  ).

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  # 683280 8-Sep-2012 23:50
Send private message

gzt:
KevinL: A reasonable analogy is a two-laned roundabout - the roundabout lanes aren't marked, as the rules depend on where you enter the roundabout.


This is not a reasonable analogy. Correct roundabout behavior is clearly defined and tested as part of the Roadcode and drivers license requirements. This intersection? Not at all. ;  ).


It was more a rationalisation of why the lanes aren't marked at the "second" intersection than a defense of the whole setup, which remains badly designed!

A two lane roundabout would be a logical solution, but I guess it doesn't work when you have one-way streets in the mix.  The intersection rules actually kind of makes some sense if you think of it as a truncated two-laned roundabout, to be honest...

a) coming from the South, the left lane can either leave the roundabout and turn left, or continue straight around the roundabout (exiting at the next intersection).  The right lane can't turn left around the roundabout and can only continue straight around the roundabout.

b) coming from the east, the left lane can't turn left as it's a one-way street, so must continue "around" the roundabout and exits straight.  The right lane can either exit straight, or continues further around the roundabout and exits right.



891 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 683292 9-Sep-2012 06:45
Send private message

While the road and markings are difficult I would say the OP is liable.
Maybe a lack of defensive driving.
Best to take the lane of least resistance in that situation.






Gordy


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Intel introduces cryogenic control chip to enable quantum computers
Posted 10-Dec-2019 21:32


Vodafone 5G service live in four cities
Posted 10-Dec-2019 08:30


Samsung Galaxy Fold now available in New Zealand
Posted 6-Dec-2019 00:01


NZ company oDocs awarded US$ 100,000 Dubai World Expo grant
Posted 5-Dec-2019 16:00


New Zealand Rugby Selects AWS-Powered Analytics for Deeper Game Insights
Posted 5-Dec-2019 11:33


IMAGR and Farro bring checkout-less supermarket shopping to New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2019 09:07


Wellington Airport becomes first 5G connected airport in the country
Posted 3-Dec-2019 08:42


MetService secures Al Jazeera as a new weather client
Posted 28-Nov-2019 09:40


NZ a top 10 connected nation with stage one of ultra-fast broadband roll-out completed
Posted 24-Nov-2019 14:15


Microsoft Translator understands te reo Māori
Posted 22-Nov-2019 08:46


Chorus to launch Hyperfibre service
Posted 18-Nov-2019 15:00


Microsoft launches first Experience Center worldwide for Asia Pacific in Singapore
Posted 13-Nov-2019 13:08


Disney+ comes to LG Smart TVs
Posted 13-Nov-2019 12:55


Spark launches new wireless broadband "Unplan Metro"
Posted 11-Nov-2019 08:19


Malwarebytes overhauls flagship product with new UI, faster engine and lighter footprint
Posted 6-Nov-2019 11:48



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.